Or more like "Oh, you're traveling to Washington and staying at the *Ramada*? Well, that means we have to transfer you through Atlanta on the way there (I know, it's four extra hours; you'll miss your meeting? Oh well, should have thought of that before.) You see, Ramada didn't pay us to expedite travelers staying with them. If you were staying at Best Western, you could have had a direct flight."
::sigh:: I know. I'm working up the motivation to make a pamphlet worthy of explaining it to grandma.
The short form: Condorcet-method voting (of which ranked pairs is a subset) is based on the idea that, in a more-than-two candidate election, the winner should be the candidate who would have beaten every other candidate if it were only a one-on-one contest; which I think has some intuitiveness to it. In odd situations though, you get a circular ambiguity; people overall prefer candidate A over candidate B, and B over C, but C over A (one of the pages on that site tries to explain how such a thing happening isn't necessarily illogical). Ranked pairs tries resolve the ambiguity, by ranking each one-on-one challenge based on the margin of victory, and ignoring weaker wins if they create such a circuit; which, again, I think anyone can appreciate a certain logical fairness in.
it requires not just phones, but a network consisting of central offices, antenna towers, fiber-optic lines, and billions of dollars worth of equipment and infrastructure...
...and government backing. Which we CAN change and is the point the author eventually gets to if you read T-Whole-FA.
First, let's get this out of the way: A senator is required to be at least 30 years of age. Article I, section 3, clause 3. (Pesky constitution!) The senate isn't suppose to be young and hip. Look to the house (they can be as young as 25.)
More importantly, if younger citizens bothered to vote, their voices might be heard. "Senior citizen issues" are actual an issue because they bother to vote.
Why can't we compare software to cognitive processes? It's a common analogy, and I'm surprsied you haven't run into it before. Also, "every attempt is an iteration of the process and the process is never ending," which you claim as an example of how evolution is not like software, is a perfect match to how security software (actually, a lot of software) is written these days.
Also, while there are many non-fatal car crashes, more people do DIE in car crashes than in plane crashes, but "fear of dying in a plane crash" is still more prevelant than "fear of dying in a car crash." And that is non-sensical.
I believe it's "the machine can be in one of two states, and each point on the tape can have one of three colors"; not "a machine that has two states, each of which can be three colors," which is gibberish.
With Radiohead's new business model getting so much attention, we're hearing a bunch of folks start to claim that this kind of business model only works for big, established bands. Funny thing is, when we point to smaller artists doing similar things, people say that such a model may work for no name artists, but couldn't possibly work for big pop stars...
I would like to think that it's not that hard to explain Condorcet to laypeople.
The concept is simple enough: if there are more than two candidates running for a position, the winner of the election should be the one who would defeat any other candidate in a one-on-one contest.
And then you mention that it's posible that such a candidate doesn't exist: A might be prefered to B, and B to C, but C is prefered over A. (Explaining why that counter-interuitive outcome can occur might be tricky.)
The Ranked Pairs Condorcet-completion method can then be explained as: if there is no such candidate, than the winner is determined by ranking the contests by margin of victory, and ignoring contests that create such a loop in preferences.
That's it; three (four with the parenthetical) sentences.
The hard part is convincing people that just because a system works great for TWO (R and D) doesn't mean it works for THREE or more (sort of like Newtonian physics; 3 (or more) body problems are hard!)
Yup, fancy that; only the manufacurers of your company's branded set-top boxes have proper documentation for the standard the FCC had to force your industry into using.
Why, it's as if the status-quo of charging ridiculous prices to locked-in customers has been maintained, despite the best efforts of regulators to circumnavigate the cable industry's phalanx-like defense of control it wields over its customers!
You're right, it's not the technology's fault. It's your ((boss's) ^ n) fault.
And what's this! Now they say, if we just wait a few more years, they'll have a new better standard, that this time it will certainly work; trust us!
So? It's not like there aren't ways around that; photosynth can do it for a million photos from any angle, doing it for 3 taken from a known angle is almost trivial.
Seeing his lecture (the live link was spread around among CMU graduates), it seems to me that, even before his diagnosis, Pausch lived every day as if it could be his last.
I think that's perhaps the main reason why, despite his situation, he's in as good spirits as he is.
I love Condorcet. The idea is simple enough: "when there's more than two choices, the winner is the one that would beat every other choice in a one-on-one contest." Anyone can be told that and go "yeah, that sounds fair." There's got to be a way to explain the system in a way that you can get any random grandmother to grok, and therefore trust, it. There's got to be!
(Hey, all you libertarians, greens, and other 3rd party candidates: PAY ATTENTION! This is how you get your foot in the door; have the vote-counting algorithm changed from first-past-the-post to a Condorcet method! Then no one has to worry about "throwing their vote away"! If 49% prefer Repbulican-Green-Democrat, and 49% prefer Democrat-Green-Republican, and 2% prefer Green over both Democrat and Republican, you win!)
It's true, and wonderful, and truly wonderful how much faster computers can make things happen; how they can obscure all the complexities and crunch over details.
Obscurity and lack of detail is precisely what you dont' want in a vote-counting process.
Nice FUD piece you've got there. But you know that Cingular was the one who bought AT&T Wireless (and later started using the AT&T name), not the other way around; partially because of all the bad PR that was built up around the Cingular name?
Slashdot Mirror
Or more like "Oh, you're traveling to Washington and staying at the *Ramada*? Well, that means we have to transfer you through Atlanta on the way there (I know, it's four extra hours; you'll miss your meeting? Oh well, should have thought of that before.) You see, Ramada didn't pay us to expedite travelers staying with them. If you were staying at Best Western, you could have had a direct flight."
He's not being dis-allowed from running. He's just being dis-allowed from running as a Democrat.
The short form: Condorcet-method voting (of which ranked pairs is a subset) is based on the idea that, in a more-than-two candidate election, the winner should be the candidate who would have beaten every other candidate if it were only a one-on-one contest; which I think has some intuitiveness to it. In odd situations though, you get a circular ambiguity; people overall prefer candidate A over candidate B, and B over C, but C over A (one of the pages on that site tries to explain how such a thing happening isn't necessarily illogical). Ranked pairs tries resolve the ambiguity, by ranking each one-on-one challenge based on the margin of victory, and ignoring weaker wins if they create such a circuit; which, again, I think anyone can appreciate a certain logical fairness in.
The wikipedia pages do a bit better on explaining the basics. Condorcet method, ranked pairs.
Wrong. Although the TelCo's use that lie to great effectiveness; worked on you.
Try hitting '0'.
In addition to being logically disconnected, this statement also shows your ignorance.
Start here. It leaves out sprint's share of the oligopoly; for that try looking here.
If the way we count votes is broken, we can change it from plurality voting to something that actually would work
Alternate step one and two: Download Opera
More importantly, if younger citizens bothered to vote, their voices might be heard. "Senior citizen issues" are actual an issue because they bother to vote.
Also, while there are many non-fatal car crashes, more people do DIE in car crashes than in plane crashes, but "fear of dying in a plane crash" is still more prevelant than "fear of dying in a car crash." And that is non-sensical.
I believe it's "the machine can be in one of two states, and each point on the tape can have one of three colors"; not "a machine that has two states, each of which can be three colors," which is gibberish.
The "back end" work is (only a little bit) more complicated, but the "front end" is the same.
If we're going to change the voting algorithm, let's REALLY fix it, not go with some half-way solution like IRV.
From the linked article:
The concept is simple enough: if there are more than two candidates running for a position, the winner of the election should be the one who would defeat any other candidate in a one-on-one contest.
And then you mention that it's posible that such a candidate doesn't exist: A might be prefered to B, and B to C, but C is prefered over A. (Explaining why that counter-interuitive outcome can occur might be tricky.)
The Ranked Pairs Condorcet-completion method can then be explained as: if there is no such candidate, than the winner is determined by ranking the contests by margin of victory, and ignoring contests that create such a loop in preferences.
That's it; three (four with the parenthetical) sentences.
The hard part is convincing people that just because a system works great for TWO (R and D) doesn't mean it works for THREE or more (sort of like Newtonian physics; 3 (or more) body problems are hard!)
Approval voting (and Instand Runoff) is a half-baked solution. Check out this site about Condorcet Ranked Pairs, including their criticism of Approval Voting.
Why, it's as if the status-quo of charging ridiculous prices to locked-in customers has been maintained, despite the best efforts of regulators to circumnavigate the cable industry's phalanx-like defense of control it wields over its customers!
You're right, it's not the technology's fault. It's your ((boss's) ^ n) fault.
And what's this! Now they say, if we just wait a few more years, they'll have a new better standard, that this time it will certainly work; trust us!
Why the hell not?
So? It's not like there aren't ways around that; photosynth can do it for a million photos from any angle, doing it for 3 taken from a known angle is almost trivial.
I think that's perhaps the main reason why, despite his situation, he's in as good spirits as he is.
No, no, a thousand times no.
I love Condorcet. The idea is simple enough: "when there's more than two choices, the winner is the one that would beat every other choice in a one-on-one contest." Anyone can be told that and go "yeah, that sounds fair." There's got to be a way to explain the system in a way that you can get any random grandmother to grok, and therefore trust, it. There's got to be!
(Hey, all you libertarians, greens, and other 3rd party candidates: PAY ATTENTION! This is how you get your foot in the door; have the vote-counting algorithm changed from first-past-the-post to a Condorcet method! Then no one has to worry about "throwing their vote away"! If 49% prefer Repbulican-Green-Democrat, and 49% prefer Democrat-Green-Republican, and 2% prefer Green over both Democrat and Republican, you win!)
It's true, and wonderful, and truly wonderful how much faster computers can make things happen; how they can obscure all the complexities and crunch over details.
Obscurity and lack of detail is precisely what you dont' want in a vote-counting process.
Sort of punches a hole in the tall-tale.